Talk:Aileron

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I see that somebody has added a page called "Ailerion(s)"... Is that a valid alternate spelling? I think not, but wanted to check.4.5.120.133 17:25, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not an alternative! - Adrian Pingstone 18:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Alerion[edit]

Alerion redirects here, apparently as a misspelling. Charge (heraldry) suggests that an alerion is a sort of fantastic bird. I am wondering if the two usages are related. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Americans at all costs try to usurp the merit of others for themselves. The patent system torsion of wings (could include all controls roll, except the ailerons, since they were patented by Boulton in 1868. All ailerons built since then was based on the invention of Boulton and not the system torsion of wing the Wright Brothers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.42.228.32 (talk) 20:08, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Merge tag[edit]

  • oppose I oppose merging this article with Flight controls, especially since it's already pretty long by itself. The merge tag was added by an anonymous account, with no explanation placed here on the talk page, so I suggest simply deleting the tag if the original editor does not bother to come here and explain in the next couple of days. David 01:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the merge tag together with the too long tag, because in my view this article really needs to be cut down and subsumed into the flight controls article. In other words, it should be merged because it's too long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for the clarification (and please remember to sign your comments). I disagree with both: the aileron is critical in the development of aviation, has an interesting history, and is controversial (due to the dispute over who invented it) — together, that should be more than enough to justify a short, ~900 word article like the one we have currently. The article seems to have had a lot of work put into it, especially with the animated graphic. David 12:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the absence of any further discussion, I'm going to remove the too-long and merge tags. This article is not too long by [standards], it covers an important topic in the history of aviation, and it's both carefully detailed and illustrated. David 16:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Steering[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that the aileron is the primary steering control on most (non-dihedral) aircraft? To the novice, it's not clear why control in the roll axis will bring about a turn, whereas control in the yaw axis usually results only in sideslipping. The answer is that by rolling, a large component of the wing's lift is directed horizontally; this centripetal force causes the turn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.171.29 (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems incorrect, what you said. The Aileron is NOT the primary steering control. The rudder is the primary steering control, as evidence by the word COORDINATED in the phrase "Coordinated turn." An Aileron roll produces too much compass change and too much altitude change. Too much correction is needed. Every airport has a specific departure procedure chart. Take offs from each runway require specific departure turns. In this situation, an aileron roll might be appropriate because a departure turn requires a severe degree change. So a departure turn doesnt require the precision control that a rudder turn would provide. Additionally, the traffic pattern for arrival requires a procedure turn so a pilot can enter the final approach. Thats another situation, where the pilot can do a roll, for convenience. He is low in altitude, with visual for approach, and theres no navigational concerns for precision turning. ....A typical skill that instructors want to teach their flight students is recovery from a spin and a stall. Spin and Stall requires some yaw, AKA Aileron, use. A very rare and extreme situation would be an immediate roll to avoid hitting an obstruction, be it a building, antenna tower, hillside, or whatever. A heavily loaded cargo transport that has a runway exit between two buildings and cant get enough lift quick enough might need to roll. Marc S, Dania Fl 206.192.35.125 (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In flight, the aileron is the primary means of changing direction. Most airplanes have an interconnection between rudder pedals and the nosewheel (or tailwheel) so while taxying (ie slow speed on the ground) the rudder pedals are the primary means of changing direction. Much of what has been written above by Marc S (206.192.35.125) makes no sense to me. Dolphin (t) 23:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In flight, the aileron is the very true means of turn. Suppose a perfect aerobatic aircraft (with no induced effects, neither adverse yaw induced by roll nor roll induced by yaw). In this case any rudder deflection gives only lateral slipping, and no direction change at all. Banking is essential to turn (to oppose the centrifugal force); adverse yaw leading to rudder use (coordinated turn) is only a secondary effect. Plxdesi dec 2012

Spades and weights picture needed[edit]

I've added a couple of sections introducing spades and weights. It might me nice to add a picture of (say) spades and google images has lots of jpg's. Trouble is I don't know what can be used without copyright problems. can a more experienced ed help please? Thanks MarkC 05:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbcannell (talk • contribs)


Invention of ailerons[edit]

It looks like there is some good and controversial history over the invention of the aileron, with half a dozen people claiming the first use. I might get around to writing a section on it, but in the meantime there is quite a good summary on aerospaceweb.

The claims seem to include:

-- Solipsist 08:34, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pearse was 1902. His aircraft took off (before the Wright brothers) but it was not a "controlled" flight and he crashed into a hedge. The ailerons were trailing-edge, hinged type (rather than the Wrights' wing-warping method).—Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.141.88.96 (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2007‎

Obs: Americans at all costs try to usurp the merit of others for themselves. The patent system torsion of wings (could include all controls roll, except the ailerons, since they were patented by Boulton in 1868. All ailerons built since then was based on the invention of Boulton and not the system torsion of wing the Wright Brothers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.42.228.32 (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2011‎

Re: Bell's research work on ailerons and lateral control: Alexander Graham Bell had apparently been subscribing to the journal L'Aérophile, as several volumes going back to the late 19th century were scanned to the Internet Archives by the Smithsonian, provenanced to Bell according to their listings (for example, as can be seen here). Assuming that Bell received those copies during their years of publication then that would explain how the Aerial Experiment Association developed their aileron used on the White Wing, which several have asserted was invented by the AEA. In the aileron article I've previously noted: "The French journal L’Aérophile published illustrations of ailerons of Esnault-Peltérie’s glider in June 1905, and its ailerons were widely copied afterward" (with cites).
What makes the issue of the aileron's first use (as opposed to being first to patent the aileron, which was apparently done by Boulton in 1868, with wing warping patented by Count D'Esterno in 1964) so muddied is that I've seen complaints by his wife, Mabel Bell, in letters to A.G. complaining of Glen Curtiss profiting from the AEA's invention of the aileron, so it appears that she, at least, believed that the AEA invented ailerons, independent of Esnault-Peltérie, Boulton, etc... Apparently many were unaware of Matthew Boulton's 1868 patent (a copy of that patent would be highly illuminating -can anyone provide it to Wikimedia?). The Parkin's work, Bell and Baldwin, has excellent material on Bell's research work on aileron's and lateral control with 'horizontal rudders', starting around pg. 64, and in other sections as well. Highly revealing is this paragraph on p. 65:
Any further info on Bell's research into the aileron would be appreciated. Comments? HarryZilber (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Britain and the US had no patent agreement until 1906, when one was finally signed. Until then British patents had no protection in the US, and vice-versa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.26 (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme stability[edit]

"Some early aircraft such as the Fokker Spin lacked any type of roll control. The Spin used an extreme amount of dihedral which made the aircraft so stable that a skidding turn could be made."

This kind of aircraft does not lack any type of roll control, but any type of ailerons. The roll is controlled by the rudder.
"Extreme stability" ? The more dihedral, the more unstable is the aircraft : the slighest assymetry in yaw (controled or not) gives a roll movement. Stability is the aptitude of the aircraft to maintain his trim in spite of external destabilization.

"On a conventional aircraft, turns using just the rudder typically result in adverse roll, rolling to the outside of the turn, a very inefficient and uncomfortable maneuver."

On a conventional aircraft, turning the rudder gives normally a yaw followed by an induced roll in the right direction. Sometimes using just the ailerons may give some adverse yaw. Plxdesi dec 1012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.150.181 (talk) 11:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santos-dumont 14 bis ailerons, control in flight[edit]

"it was never fully controllable in flight, likely due to its unconventional wing form and forward-mounted elevators and rudders."

This remark does not apply to aileron page.
Many "first to fly" aircraft were not fully controllable in flight, including the Flyer 1903.
"Unconventional wing form and canard elevator/rudder" do not explain the 14 bis lack of control in flight : there were other potential causes : CG position, inefficient control surfaces, etc... Plxdesi dec 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.3.150.181 (talk) 11:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Attached to the trailing edge"[edit]

This is very simply untrue - the aileron is in fact usually "attached" (hinged) from a spar or false spar forward of the trailing edge - its own trailing edge forms part of the trailing edge wing as a whole. There are structural as well as aerodynamic reason for this that we needn't go into here. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some Pre-WW1 and WW1 aircraft (such as the Antoinette IV monoplane) in fact did attach the aileron to the trailing edge of the wing, however this was not common practice for the reasons you mention.NiD.29 (talk) 16:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aileron. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Lack of diagrams showing how aileron position is controlled[edit]

For example, a conventional plane - like a Supermarine Spitfire, or anything similar. There is a complete lack of diagrams or links to videos that show the important information, such as how the ailerons are moved - like, what the controlling mechanisms look like, and how they are interconnected to actually move an aileron. Could start with that. And then move onto more recent aircraft. KorgBoy (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. However, ailerons are moved (controlled) in many different ways. There is no one method that could be considered the default mechanism or the standard mechanism. For example, some ailerons are controlled by:
  • push-rods and pull-rods that run from the pilot's controls to the ailerons,
  • flexible cables that run to the ailerons,
  • cables that run to the aileron trim tab rather than the ailerons,
  • hydraulic actuators that move the ailerons,
  • electric actuators that move the ailerons.
I agree that a simple diagram would be helpful, especially to students and newcomers to the field of aviation. Dolphin (t) 12:24, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another meaning of the word "aileron"?[edit]

According to Polish Wikipedia, a aileron is a component of a grapeshot (weapon) too. Should this meaning be added here and used in the entry "grapeshot"? Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 17:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not in favour of adding the meaning of aileron in any language other than English. This is the English-language Wikipedia so we can assume the great majority of readers do not read the Polish language so, for them, the information will be trivial.
Sometimes there is significance to readers of the English Wikipedia of a foreign meaning of a word or topic. In such cases, it is appropriate to show the foreign meaning in the English Wikipedia. For example, in the English article on Alphabet it is appropriate to see an explanation that alpha and beta are the first two letters of the Greek equivalent. That degree of significance does not exist with the Polish meanings of aileron. Dolphin (t) 21:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, but since the Polish translator translated the Polish word lotka into English aileron in the Polish encyclopedia, he either found an equivalent in English literature or translated it mechanically and without any basis. In the first case, there should be a trace in the English Wikipedia (and there is not), in the second case, it is a wrong translation. Mir.Nalezinski (talk) 14:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aileron&oldid=1216894735"